Certiorari

High Court, while deciding whether or not to issue a writ of certiorari, could not supplement the order of a tribunal with reasons that are not present in such an order

In exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, Court could not determine questions of fact, or do what the Full Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission was supposed to have done

High Court, in Constitutional jurisdiction, had full powers to do justice but could not substitute its own decision for the decision of the tribunal below.

High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could only exercise discretionary jurisdiction with regard to issuance of writ of "certiorari" in cases where petitioner's hands were not soiled

Illegal order sought to be judicially reviewed, would not be interfered when the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands or interference would result in unjust and unlawful enrichment of the petitioner.

Disentitles party to seek relief by way of certiorari.

Art, 98-CertiorariOrder found to have been passed by authority not vested will jurisdiction-Petitioner, nevertheless, not entitled to any relief if he himself has knowingly and willingly submitted to jurisdiction of that authority and acquiesced in it-Maxim: Ex debito justitiat (from a debt of justice).

Art. 98 (2) (a) (ii) -Writ-Certiorari-Mandamus-Not available if alternative remedy, provided in Statute, not availed of.

Art. 98 (2) (a) (ii)Writ-Certiorari-Mandamus-Not available if alternative remedy provided in Statute not availed of.

Writ-Certiorari-Available to correct errors in exercise of quasi judicial appellate powers-[Appellate Board constituted under bye-laws of Co-operative Society]-Secretary, of Co-operative Society "exercising administrative functions in a considerable township", a statutory office as distinguished from office of "Commercial Manager of a Co-operative Bank" - [The Lahore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Saif Ullah Shah (1959) P S C R 164=P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 210 distinguished].

-Certiorari-Error on face of record-Against judicial form and procedure and resulting in miscarriage of justice-Quashed by writ of certiorari-(Court exercising writ jurisdiction not a Court of appeal or Revision).

Writ of discretion, not of right.

Certiorari-Court will refuse to grant if issue of writ is futile-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170.

-Certiorari-Issued, when order impugned is beyond scope of authority of Tribunal concerned, or its determination suffers from illegality, or there is error apparent on face of record

Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170.

S.49-Revisional jurisdiction of Commissioner-Necessity of giving opportunity of hearing to aggrieved party-[Mat. Amir Begum v. Umar Din and others P L D 1961 Lah. 360 ref. ]

Certiorari, writ of-English practice-When and to whom issued. In the cases of certiorari and prohibition the English law does not recognise any distinction for this purpose between the regularly constituted judicial tribunals and bodies which, while not existing primarily for the discharge of judicial functions, yet have to act analogously to a judge in respect of certain of their duties. The writ of certiorari has been issued to the latter since such ancient times that the power to do so has long been an integral part of the Court's jurisdiction. In truth the only rele­vant criterion by English law is not the general status of the person or body of persons by whom the impugned decision is made but the nature of the process by which he or they are empowered to arrive at their decision. When it is a judicial process or a process analogous to the judicial, certiorari can he granted.